Award Checklist and Memo to FileContract #02515Satellite Phone Equipment and Services

Nathen Hayes / Marci Disken

Contract type: New Replacement WSCA General Use Restricted to:_____________

Contract duration: Initial Term: __1___ years months Maximum life: ___6__ Years

Estimated term worth: $322,780 Estimated annual worth: $53,796

Number of: Bidders notified: ___318_____ Bids received: ____4___ Bids rejected: ___1______

MWBE award: Small Business%33 , WBE % 0, MBE 0 , Self-identified WBE % 33 , Self-identified MBE % 0

Executive summary: The purpose of this Contract is to establish a statewide master contract for satellite phone equipment and services. This was requested by the Washington State Military Department.

Special notes: The original Procurement Coordinator, Nathen Hayes had resigned from state service and his last day of employment with DES was May 1st which was also the bid closing date. At that time the Evaluation process of this solicitation was assigned to Marci Disken.

Bid development

Stakeholder work:

Nathen held several meetings with Robert Purdom, Roy Benavente, Chris Utzinger, Kurt Hardin, from the Emergency Management Division of the Washington Military Department and Scott Smith with DES regarding the development of the requirements for this solicitation. It was decided to add language that would allow multiple awards which will allow more options for customers.

Supplier diversity: Total of 318 vendors were notified of the opportunity and of those, 1 was WBE, 3 MBE, 10 VB, and 46 were Small Businesses (SB). The RFP voluntary goals were 3% for all WBE, MVE, SB & VB. Additional outreach was conducted through the DES Business Partnership forum (Vendor Educations event at the Tacoma Convention Center, June 3rd 2015.)

Market research: It appears that Nathen had conducted market research through several avenues. WSCA Contract for Satellite Phone Equipment and Services DG7520 which was conducted by the state of Utah as the lead state. GSA Schedule 70 Category132 55 which may not have met the needs of the state of Washington for it appears to not have been competitively bid. Nathen researched through Forbes.com on how and when to buy a satellite phone. Also with Wikipedia for various definitions of satellite phone terminology. Military department estimated that a possible need of 100 phones may be purchased from the resulting contract.

Bid Development: The goal is to establish a statewide master contract for satellite phone equipment and services for the various cabinet agencies. The business need is a reliable communication system in case of catastrophic breakdown of communications. This request for a contract came from the Washington State Military Department with the intention to award up to three contractors for Satellite Phone Equipment and Services. Nathen worked with Stakeholder group in developing the needs of the equipment, services and specifications.

Peer Review: Peer review was completed by Neva Peckham and Scott Smith which resulted in a few changes to the RFP. No documentation found.

Bid Process

RFP 02515 Posted through WEBS on April 10, 2015 with a bid closing date of May 1, 2015 at 2:00 pm

Award Checklist and Memo to FileContract #Contract name

Q&A or Complaints A pre-bid conference was not held however questions or complaints were due five business days prior to the bid closing date. One question was asked which was answered through solicitation Amendment one (1).

Amendment(s): Amendment one (1) was posted through WEBS on April 24, 2015 and not required for submittal with RFP. The following was for the purpose of the amendment

1. Combine the two categories of the RFP (one for equipment, the other for service plans) into a single category for bid evaluation and award purposes.

2. Add additional specifications that require the satellite phone system to be high orbit (geospatial) and provide continuous connectivity across the continental United States.

3. Answer potential Bidders questions related to this RFP submitted to the Procurement Coordinator.

4. Clarify that the RFP is requesting proposals for the purchase of phone equipment, but that the rental of phone equipment may be included as an optional (not scored) component in the Bidder’s Price Sheet.

Amendment Two (2) was posted through WEBs on April 28th, 2015 and was also not required for submittal with RFP. The following was for the purpose of the amendment.

1. To remove the specification introduced in Solicitation Amendment Number 1 that requires the satellite phone system to be high orbit (geospatial).

2. To confirm that the RFP requires that the satellite phone system provide continuous connectivity across the continental United States

Bid Evaluation – Responsiveness

Bid opening: 2:00PMDate: May 1, 2015

Four (4) electronic bids were received which appear to all be on time. No late bids were receivedThe following where the four (4) bidders who responded.

Ocean Coastal Environmental Sensing dba OCENS Range Global Services Remote Satellite Systems NI Government Services

Bids sealed and signed?

All four (4) bids were delivered electronically to Nathean.Hayes@DES.wa.gov inbox and they all singed and submitted the Certifications and Assurances Appendix A as required in the solicitation

Received all required The following submittals were required for the RFP

Award Checklist and Memo to FileContract #Contract name

submittals: Transmittal Letter- Mandatory(M) Appendix A : Certification and Assurances-(M) Appendix F: Price Sheet-Mandatory Scored (MS) Appendix E: Issue List- (M), if bidder is taking any exceptions to any term or condition of

the sample contract. Executive Summary-Desirable(D) References-(MS) RFP Amendments-(M), if instructed to do so in any such amendments. Even though two

solicitation amendments were issued, none of them were required to be submitted. OCENS, Range Global, and Remote passed the administrative screening and mandatory Requirements and moved forward in the evaluation process. NI Government Services submitted three different options for satellite phone equipment and services which were allowed, however failed to submit any of them in the correct pricing format within Appendix F: Price Sheet which was a requirement and therefore was rejected. NI Government Services did not move forward in the evaluation process.

Specification compliance?

Three proposals were carefully reviewed by DES and the Military Department for specification compliance and all three bidders appear to be able to provide the satellite phone equipment and services to the RFP expectations.

Price sheet compliance?

All three bidders Bid Price Sheets conformed to the requirements of the solicitation. The various categories scored within the price sheet are:

Basic Satellite Phone service Fees(MS) Additional Service/Features(MS) Proposed Equipment cost (MS) Additional Equipment, Parts, Items (MS)

Bidders were asked to respond to section 8.1.1.1 through 8.1.1.7 which was also incorporated into the pricing evaluation.

Bid Evaluation – Responsibility

Past performance? Bidders were required to provide references for their three (3) largest customers that use their satellite phone services, which all bidders had provided. All references for the three bidders were emailed asking for them to score each bidder on the following five reference questions, 1-5, 1 being poor, 5 being excellent.

1. Please rate the bidder’s overall quality and reliability as your Satellite Service Provider.2. Please rate the overall quality of customer service you received from this bidder.3. Please rate the bidder’s overall quality of the Wireless Satellite phone device. 4. Please rate the bidder’s overall quality of Network and user device Maintenance. 5. Please rate the bidder’s service regarding any equipment problems and/or failed

equipment.All three references for OCENS and Remote responded with favorable scores. One out of three references responded for Range Global which the one appeared to be in favor of Range Global. Three total attempts were made by email and phone to reach the un responsive references with a notation that a “no response” will cause a Zero (0) score for the bidder. OCEANS scored the highest for references, Remote scored the next highest and Range Global scored the lowest due to receiving a Zero score for two of the three references. Reverence scoring identified as 3% of the total overall award.

Qualifications? Bidders were evaluated in determining qualifications by reviewing their proposal content response for subsections 4 through 8 and verification of dealer authorization upon request.

Bid Evaluation – Scoring

Award Checklist and Memo to FileContract #Contract name

Evaluation: Once the Responses were reviewed and passed the administrative screening and mandatory requirements their proposals were then sent to the Bob Purdom for scoring of the non-cost factors which were phone equipment, Maintenance, Customer Support and Bidder Profile. The following scoring was identified within the original RFP in the following relative percentage:

Cost: 40% Customer Support: 20% Maintenance Support: 30% Vendor Profile: 7% References: 3%

Cost components were entered into the evaluation score sheet with max 100 points available. Range Global scored the highest for total combined points within the pricing worksheet which resulted in them receiving the max points and OCENS and Remote receive a proportionally reduced score.All three bidders scored the same for Bidder Profile and received max points.

OCENS received highest total overall scores for Customer Support, Maintenance Support, and References which resulted in them receiving max points. Remote and Range Global received a proportionally reduced score.

After final tabulation, OCENS scored the overall highest and was determined the ASB. The solicitation ASB selection process allowed for any bidder receiving a bidder response total within 10% of the highest bidder response total score will also be declared an ASB. The solicitation also allowed for DES to expand the percentage to allow for up to three ASBs. It was determined that it was the best interest of the state to expand the percentage to 10.5% which resulted in Remote and Range Global within 10.5% of OCENS score. All three (3) bidders were announced as the ASB’s.

Results and recommendation

Savings: In creating a master contract it has saved all the cabinet agencies time to conduct their own procurements and contracts which has been calculated to be approximately cost of $3,000-$5,000 per procurement/contract from start to finish. Unfortunately I couldn’t find another state contract to compare cost savings on equipment and services however it appears to be within the range of online pricing.

Recommendation: It has been determined that it is in the best interest of the state to award this contract to all three bidders, OCENS, Remote & Range Global which will allow a selection of products, services and pricing for customers to choose from.

Award Activities

Implementation Plan The implementation of this contract will be in coordination with the Military Department. The Military Department is required to report to the Governor’s Office the Implementation plan on how the executive agencies will be notified of this requirement and there instructions on the ordering and set up.

WEBS Notify bidders of the award via WEBS Archive bid in WEBS after awarded

Award Checklist and Memo to FileContract #Contract name

Communication Send rejection letter to those bidders to disqualified bidders Send apparent successful bidder announcement letter <if applicable> Send Award Announcement letters to all bidders <if applicable> Email Kerry Bustetter a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast

Contract Model Contract updated to reflect Bid Amendment language

PCMS Populate PCMS Info Tab Complete PCMS Expanded Description Tab Add Web remark in the PCMS Remarks Tab announcing the award of the contract Add at least 5-FAQ remarks in the PCMS Remarks Tab Complete PCMS Internet Tab to include relevant search terms Include relevant search terms in the PCMS Internet Tab Complete PCMS Commodities Tab Complete PCMS Vendors Tab Complete PCMS Customer Tab Complete PCMS Fees Tab

Post contract to DES Website

Copy the following files into the G:\Shared Info\INTERNET folder: Copy Contract file (#####c.doc) Copy the price sheet (#####p.doc or xls) Copy the specification (#####s.pdf) if applicable Copy the bid tab (#####t.doc or xls) Copy the bid document (#####b.doc)